Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS SHAN
MORGAN
13 JUNE 2006
Q240 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
that decision I know will be very widely welcomed in the Committee.
Before we finish the Western Balkans can we turn to Serbia. When
the Committee was last in Belgrade there clearly was a widespread
and strong perception of the benefits for Serbia, a former republic
of Yugoslavia, to start down the process of EU accession, and
clearly that would have a very, very beneficial internal effect
in what is now Serbia in modernising the system of criminal justice
and performing to the standards expected by EU Member States.
Can you tell us, and indeed give the assurance, that providing
Serbia can satisfy ICTY that it is co-operating fully with ICTY,
once that hurdle has been overcome the way is open in principle
for Serbia to start down the accession process into the EU?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I can certainly
give the Committee that assurance. I think it is a source of considerable
disappointment to a great many people that Serbia was not willing,
as appears to be the problem, to comply with ICTY. That is why
the Commission, quite rightly, suspended discussions with them.
I understand the Commissioner has said that should Serbia decide
after all to comply he stands ready to proceed with those discussions
as soon as possible.
Q241 Mr Illsley: Foreign Secretary,
an incident was averted as late as yesterday when Cyprus relented
and allowed the first chapter of the Turkish accession negotiations
to go ahead, but there will be problems in the future as a consequence
of Turkey's refusal to recognise the Republic of Cyprus. Do you
see that as an ongoing obstacle? Do you see any resolution to
that issue of recognition?
Margaret Beckett: Certainly, as
you say, yesterday an area of difficulty was averted. Until those
issues can be resolved it will continue to be a source of difficulty
during the negotiations with Turkey. The Member States and the
Commission continue to urge the full application of the Ankara
Agreement Protocol and to move forward in the way that we all
know is necessary. I should say though perhaps that we also continue
to urge the Republic of Cyprus that we should be looking to try
and progress some form of agreement as, indeed, was proposed by
the United Nations' Secretary-General some time ago because all
of these things do represent an area of difficulty for the European
Union as a whole and one which it would be helpful to all concerned
to see resolved.
Q242 Mr Illsley: Given the obstacles
that Turkey faces—opposition from existing members of the
European Union, not just Cyprus itself but there have been doubts
expressed in Germany and France, and its own internal difficulties
in terms of human rights issues, the influence of the military,
of the so-called deep state—is there any realistic prospect
of Turkey being able to join the European Union?
Margaret Beckett: Oh, yes, I think
so. Obviously we will get an updated report on issues like the
Ankara Protocol in October, I believe, when the Commission makes
its next report on the progress of the talks in general. It was
not so long ago—I am not carrying the date in my head—that
Turkey set up an independent body to look at human rights. They
know very well that there is concern about issues such as domestic
reform, human rights, freedom of expression, the role of women,
and so on, and are very mindful of the fact that this is an area
in which people hope that they will move forward. The reform package
that set up the independent human rights body has also included
measures to improve minority religious rights and to give tighter
civilian control on military expenditure. I think it is clear
that Turkey is moving in the right direction but obviously that
has to continue.
Q243 Chairman: Can I ask you about
the impact of the failure to have a Constitutional Treaty on the
external affairs work of the European Union. I was at a meeting
in the European Parliament about three weeks ago when Mr Solana
said that although he was not impeded in doing his job now, he
might be from November when the Constitutional Treaty would have
come into effect. We have been told by Douglas Alexander that
the European External Action Service cannot come into effect without
the Constitutional Treaty which would provide it with a legal
base, but the European Union continues to have offices in various
places around the world where sometimes the people are called
ambassadors, although we had a very helpful memo pointing out
that they are not ambassadors. Could you clarify, in the absence
of the European Union having the Constitutional Treaty, what is
exactly the position of the external representation both in terms
of representatives and also the role of Mr Solana.
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
in terms of the external representation, that is quite correct,
it cannot go ahead. As you say, it is sometimes reported that
various people call EU representatives "ambassadors",
but not us, and not, I rather think, any Member States. It is
absolutely clear that that cannot go ahead. I am slightly surprised
to learn, I must talk to Javier, about the fact that he feels
his position may be more difficult after October. That may be
a point of view he expressed before he got involved in the communications
and discussions with Iran where I think he has not faced any difficulties
and, indeed, is making a very valuable contribution. With regard
to the offices, obviously this is Commission business, it is the
Commission's budget. I know that some concerns have been aired
but they are for them to answer rather than for me.
Q244 Chairman: Although we welcome
steps to open some embassies, which you have already referred
to, nevertheless there are embassies that have been closed in
several parts of the world, including a number of Commonwealth
countries and other posts have had restrictions and reductions.
What scrutiny do we carry out of the Commission's representative
offices in other countries? Do Member States have any control
over this?
Margaret Beckett: We carry out
the ordinary kind of scrutiny that goes with the budget process,
in which this Parliament is involved, as is the European Parliament.
I think I can fairly confidently say we do not have a great deal
of involvement in scrutiny other than that because I understand
that Mr Mackinlay asked for some information about those offices
the last time Douglas Alexander came to this Committee and we
are endeavouring to find it out, Chairman, but we have not yet
totally succeeded. Perhaps I should apologise to Mr Mackinlay
in his absence but I can assure him that as soon as we do have
that information it will be before this Committee. Since we have
not got that information I think that does suggest that we are
not involved in very detailed scrutiny.
Q245 Chairman: Who has got the information
that you need to get?
Margaret Beckett: The Commission
presumably has got it. I do not think the feeling is that this
is an issue of, how can I put this, less than full transparency,
I think it is maybe an issue of whether or not they can lay their
hands on it.
Q246 Chairman: It is quite worrying,
is it not, because there is a serious amount of money being spent
here.
Margaret Beckett: As I say, it
is a budget to which we contribute but no doubt the Court of Auditors
is apprised of this and should we continue to be in a position
that there is no move forward on any of these areas then no doubt
that is something people will look at in the future.
Q247 Mr Horam: Nonetheless, this
is probably an indication that the European Commission does want
to strengthen its Foreign and Security Policy and to make it more
coherent. I have not seen this paper by Mr Barroso but I understand
that he talks about improved co-operation between the Commission
and the Council Secretariat. He wants personnel between nation
states' foreign services and the Commission to be more interchangeable
than they are and he wants better strategic planning between,
no doubt, Mr Solana's High Representative Unit and the Commission's
external relation commissioners. Is there anything here you do
not agree with?
Margaret Beckett: No. The phrases
that you have quoted seem unexceptional.
Q248 Mr Horam: Unexceptional.
Margaret Beckett: However, there
is a caveat to that. Who can quarrel with greater co-operation
or perhaps greater exchange of personnel. For example, in my former
department we exchanged personnel with the comparable French ministry.
All of those things, better strategic planning, can be very useful.
However, and there is a substantial however to this, better co-ordination
within the Commission and between the High Representative and
the Commission, fine, we would not quarrel with that, but I understand
there is also a suggestion of perhaps full Commission participation
alongside the Presidency and EU delegations. Well, no, maybe not,
perhaps not even legally allowable. I stress to the Committee
that the headline phrases that you have quoted are fine but if
they contain within them detail which we question then we will
question it.
Q249 Mr Horam: The general objective,
which is clearly working towards a more coherent European Union
Foreign Policy, the general direction of travel, are you content
with that? You would like to see a more coherent European Foreign
and Security Policy, would you?
Margaret Beckett: There will be
times when different Member States simply cannot see eye-to-eye
on particular issues but it must always be of benefit if there
is genuine common ground on particular issues. Tribute was paid
at the General Affairs Council yesterday to the work of my predecessor,
Jack Straw, and to Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer for
starting off the process of engagement with Iran. Whatever is
the outcome of where we now find ourselves on those negotiations
there can be no question that the fact that those three Member
States found common ground and worked together and co-ordinated
together to move things forward is potentially of substantial
benefit to Iran, to Europe, to the Middle East and to the wider
world.
Q250 Mr Horam: To do that on a more
consistent basis than just a one-off like Iran we do have to have,
do we not, closer institutional arrangements than we have now
of the kind that Mr Barroso is talking about?
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure.
Possibly. If I can give you a different example from some of my
experience in my former department. There is really very good
co-operation between Member States on the world stage, if I can
put it that way, in terms of negotiations on issues like climate
change, very, very good. People do not have identical views but
there is a coherence and consistency of purpose and a willingness
to work together, and that is beneficial and is part of what fed
my response to the Chairman's first question.
Q251 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Foreign
Secretary, as you know, it was a proposition in the European Constitution
that EU representatives, most notably the proposed EU Foreign
Minister but also others, should report both to the Commission
and to the Council of Ministers. This was a form of so-called
double-hatting designed to strengthen the Commission's position
in foreign policy and dilute that of Member States. Can I put
it to you that this is already happening and give you an example?
The EU Special Representative in Macedonia is a Commission appointment
but also reports to the Council of Ministers. When this was set
up the British Government complained and made a declaration that
it should not be a precedent for the future. Does it alarm you
though that the European Constitution is being brought in incrementally
by the back door, and this is just one small example, and can
you give us an assurance that you will block any repetition such
as similar people being proposed for Kosovo and elsewhere in the
Balkans which would undermine the crucial involvement and accountability
and primacy of Member States in foreign policy?
Margaret Beckett: It would alarm
me if I thought that that was happening in any serious way. I
do not think it is. You have quoted the example of Macedonia and
I believe that is the only example, and as you identified, quite
rightly, we did protest about it at the time and insisted that
it must not be seen as a precedent. I have already, in the short
time that I have been in this post, heard on a number of occasions
representatives, not just of the UK but also of other Member States,
talking very firmly about foreign policies being a matter for
Member States, and I think you will find that Member States across
the board are generally quite jealous of their rights.
Q252 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So this
will not happen in Bosnia and Kosovo and elsewhere? This is a
one-off and not a precedent?
Margaret Beckett: You are asking
me to give you an undertaking as to what will happen. I will simply
give you an undertaking that this is certainly not a precedent
that the United Kingdom Government would wish to see repeated
and we would resist it.
Q253 Mr Keetch: Can I just return,
Foreign Secretary, to the point that our Chairman made about the
location and number of EU posts, representatives, call them what
you like, overseas? This Committee has been very critical of the
Foreign Office in the past for closing embassies in places like
Madagascar or consul-generals in Seattle or whatever because presumably
somebody in the Foreign Office has done a cost/benefit analysis
as to whether it is necessary to have that post there; we may
not agree with it but at least that process has begun. Are you
saying to us that you are unable to find out if there is a similar
process for EU representative offices throughout the world because,
if that is the case, it is no criticism of you but I would have
thought that the EU, who after all are spending European taxpayers'
money, ought to have a process of saying where they have the offices
and why they have the offices and what is the benefit of having
those offices in such places.
Margaret Beckett: I agree entirely
with your contention and that is a matter for the institutions
of the European Union and the Court of Auditors, the European
Parliament and so on. I am simply saying to you that I would have
thought—and I am pretty confident in that—that such
a process is gone through at EU level just as it is, as you quite
rightly say, at national level here. I am simply saying we are
not part of that process because we are not running the European
Union.
Chairman: Can I switch focus and ask
you about EU-US relations?
Q254 Mr Purchase: We know that relations
are ongoing, and we hope strengthening, as they go between Europe
and the US but there are differences, as one would expect, between
two continents. What are the main areas of difficulty that you
see, Secretary of State, in the EU-US relationship? Do we need
a little distance perhaps between the two or should we be coming
ever closer together and almost indistinguishable?
Margaret Beckett: I am sure it
will be a long time before we are indistinguishable, if ever.
I think it is pretty clear that where there is understanding and
acceptance between, for example, the United States and the countries
of the European Union that is a strength to both and that we can
each be even more effective, and again I quote the example of
Iran where the fact that there is a lot of common ground between
the United States and the other players has been beneficial so
far and we must hope that it will be beneficial in the future,
but there are other areas where there will undoubtedly be differences
of view. Sometimes it is a matter of differences within a broad
common approach. For example, in the Middle East both the United
States and the European Union are committed to a two-state solution.
Sometimes we do not wholly see eye to eye on the tactics of what
will help to advance the peace process in the Middle East at a
given point in time but obviously one area, and again the things
that spring to my mind are mostly things where we do see eye to
eye, is the Doha Round. There is common ground on how important
and beneficial and ambitious outcomes in the Doha Round could
be. Where the differences arise is that we think the United States
should be making some more moves and they think we should be making
some more moves, and it is repeated, of course, with the G20 and
all the other players and we are on the brink more or less of
discussions in Geneva where people hope that this can all be moved
forward. There are areas of difference and where there are such
areas of difference it is likely that there will be a degree of
distance.
Q255 Mr Purchase: Can I put to you
that there is a difference in the way in which mainland Europe
considers its relationship with the USA and that which appears
to be British policy, of ever closer relations with the USA? There
does seem to be a perception there of a difference between mainland
Europe and the UK. In Vienna next week many of these arguments
will be rehearsed and rehearsed again. Are they creating any tension
between Britain and its approach to the US and Europe more generally
in its approach to the US?
Margaret Beckett: There have been
times, and no doubt there will be times again, when different
Member States take a different view and have more concerns about
the relationship with the United States. Yesterday, in the General
Affairs Council—and I am sorry to keep going back to it
but it is such an unusual but hopefully encouraging example—when
there was a report back on the issue of Iran, I had fully expected
(I think we had all fully expected) a certain amount—I am
just trying to think of the right word; I was going to say "critical"
but I do not mean unpleasantly critical—of critical scrutiny
and anxiety and so on, but actually there was an extremely positive
mood in the General Affairs Council and a recognition and very
warm words said about the contribution made by those who had participated
and a recognition of the contribution made by the United States.
There are growing relationships between other Member States as
well as the United Kingdom and the United States and a greater
degree of multilateral engagement. Yes, there have been issues
but I can only repeat what our Prime Minister has always said,
that it is in the interests of this country and, we would argue,
probably in the interests of every Member State that there should
be good relationships within the European Union and good relationships
with the United States.
Q256 Mr Keetch: Secretary of State,
you have met the Israeli Prime Minister, I think this morning,
and indeed the Chairman and I and further members of the Committee
were also present at a meeting with him earlier today. Can I ask
you about the situation and specifically about EU aid going into
the Palestinian Authority because, as you know, in 2005 that was
some €280 million. That has been suspended following the
election of Hamas, although obviously we do not want to do anything
to undermine the position of President Mahmoud Abbas. The Quartet
has talked about the creation of a temporary international mechanism
for channelling these funds in to ensure that they get to the
people but do not in some way bankroll Hamas. Can you tell us
what progress has been made on the creation of this mechanism,
either discussed at yesterday's meeting or in terms of the discussions
you have had so far today with the Israeli Prime Minister?
Margaret Beckett: We discussed
it briefly. To a certain extent I was reporting to the Israeli
Prime Minister—I met the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday
in Luxembourg and the Prime Minister today—where we are
in terms of the EU's approach. As you quite rightly say, of course,
substantial funding has gone into Palestine from this country
and also from the EU and work is proceeding with urgency to try
to develop this temporary international mechanism. We, the EU,
were, of course, commissioned to do that by the Quartet at their
meeting. It is not quite clear to me just how close they are because
there are a whole lot of practical issues and difficulties, but
what I think does emerge from the discussions yesterday and the
report of the Commissioner is that there is a clear agreement
that there should be a relatively small number of areas where
we seek to put funding. We in the UK are inclined to the view
that it would be best to concentrate on support for health care.
Some other Member States do not want to restrict it just to health
care. That discussion is ongoing. Also, of course, should such
a mechanism be successfully set up there is then the issue of
whether or not other players would contribute through it in order
exactly to not breach the Quartet principles by funding the Hamas
Government directly at a time when they show no indication that
they are prepared to move towards those principles. What was reported
yesterday was that work is ongoing with some urgency. There is
anxiety to get this up and running as soon as possible in order
to try to stave off the development of substantial humanitarian
problems and, of course, the Israeli Government itself is using
some of the revenues that they have on utility bills, water, I
think, as well, and has offered to pay for medicines but that
offer has been rejected. I do not recall getting a deadline or
a clear indication from her as to how long she thinks it will
take but they are moving as fast as they can.
Q257 Chairman: Foreign Secretary,
in January I think it was, when there were the difficulties in
Jericho, there was then an attack on the British Council facilities
in the West Bank and on the building in Gaza which was set fire
to. In this current situation of potential conflict and violence
between Hamas people and Al Aqsa people and other people, how
secure are our people in those facilities and is there any consideration
that you have to give at the moment to what might need to be done
if this situation deteriorates further?
Margaret Beckett: I think, Chairman,
I will have to offer to write to the Committee about that.[1]
Q258 Chairman: I would be grateful.
Margaret Beckett: Obviously, this
is an issue that people do keep under review; you are quite right
to say, and we always try to have a duty of care towards our staff
and people like the British Council staff, but if I may I will
come back to you on that point.
Chairman: Certainly.
Q259 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
as you are aware, neither the British Government nor, so far as
I am aware, any other EU Member State regards any territory beyond
Israel's 1967 borders as being part of the internationally recognised
state of Israel. Given what has been said by the Israeli Prime
Minister in the last few weeks, indeed the last few days, will
the UK, along with the EU, be making it quite clear to the Israeli
Government that any unilateral, as opposed to negotiated, annexation
of part of the West Bank or east Jerusalem would be internationally
unacceptable and unacceptable to the EU?
Margaret Beckett: We have made
it extremely clear to the Israeli Government, and the Prime Minister
did to the Israeli Prime Minister yesterday, that we are looking
for negotiations and for a negotiated settlement and that we would
view any unilateral action by the Israeli Government as—I
was going to say very much second best, but we would be reluctant
to see such unilateral action because we believe that negotiation
is the right way forward. You will know that the Prime Minister
has given an undertaking to the President and to the Prime Minister
publicly that he will do everything he can to pursue the process
of negotiation and I think the international community will want
to see that that is what happens.
1 Ev 85 Back
|
